About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Antonini 6, Hillis 3, Borden 3, Jerry Garcia 3, Moore 2, Us 2, San Francisco 2, The City 2, Manicured 1, Iana 1, Teardown 1, San Franciscoan 1, Boren 1, John Mclaren 1, Sugaya 1, Madame 1, Wu 1, Fong 1, Mr. Wang 1, Tom Wang 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 30, 2012
    7:00 - 7:30am PST  

7:00am
much million? is 43 million and i know you discuss the may be 11 million? i don't know if we discussed the whole 43 million and where the costs are and why it's so much. okay. >> i'll take up the 43.254 million is the estimate for the phase two budget. i think why the costs are so high, i would ask kim to give more details, i think that it's a combination of the large site, the cost of reconstruction, and the maritime improves required for the operation and then having many other parts including security a very robust security program, major public access improvemnt and is a two
7:01am
and-a-half acre park and it's all of those thing that get you a hundred and senior and 11 million-dollar project and so that is my answer for why it's so expensive. >> okay so am i reading this bronchbecause the request is for one 25 million. >> yes can you describe why it's more than the actual budget? yeah, when we came back i think last time we were up here in front of the port commission, one of the other projects came into be on our contract. that was the american's cup infrastructure improves on some of the other pier and is that is $14.7 million. so when we come back to talk about the increase for turner, we have to consider that it's on top of that 14 million although it's not for
7:02am
this project. so, there are contract gets increased because this amount is in there. >> okay so the change for the cruise terminal about the proposed 82 million but when we approved the 82 million didn't we take this into consideration? no phase two was really just an estimate at the time and so no work and other than the phase two --. >> so it was an estimate yeah and so other than the phase two it gets very complex and you have up with the project a very long time and the work and phase in phase one. design work included the phase two drawings because they were developed at the same time. so, in the phase two, we are not including the design fee for new drawings. . >> okay so the additional 40 is going towards..
7:03am
? issue wish i have had of the able -- page nine. four table a she is talking about the 39 tpt p.7 increase in turner's acts and the 49 million increase in d p contract and so 43 million total for the three contracts that has changed in the authorization. . okay so we are talk about the cruise
7:04am
terminal 37.000000 and so if you go back to table two on page four of your report, at the top, we have broken this down as best as we can by system. which gives you the total of $36 million. and then on top of that, there is a contingency of 10%. of such that is 3.6 million and so that should total up to 39-point p$.7 million did you take the plaza into consideration at all during phase one? no. so the table on phase one is who of approved by contract to date ask so since we have identified funding for phase one that is all that has been approved and so the table in page six and ask what the contracts need to change but but not necessarily what the
7:05am
estimates have changed by does that make sense? so we are always praying successfully that the park can be funded from the joe bonds and so we have never had approved expend tours accept for the money we spend designing it and working through the b.c. b d retirements for the permanent which were not cheap, that makes sense. we are trying we did a great job of giving everything that we know in the department but it gets confusing really fast. >> thank you and so for the design team contract and l b e goal of 15%,th that is now at 44.6% which, is absolutely wonderful but what dollar amount is that on is that on the 1.9? is that or the -- it's on the phase one dollar amount. which,
7:06am
is 9.9? >> and that is great. thank you. that is a wonderful wonderful achievementism have and then under of the c m g c contract. okay so c m g c is running a little bit behind our goal and we have got about 12 and-a-half% l b participation and this is based on invoices, provided to us which lag at least 30 days behind and the fun end of project had small specialties like structural steal as we move forward we are getting into less specialized work and so our estimate for november when we get the bills and and everything we make an official l b it should be about 18 perts p%.
7:07am
>> you answered my question, thank you. a lot of focus on that question. you are going to be happy happy happy at the end, right kim? and then i think most of my questions have been answered but one correct this if i'm on wrong but it looks like really the changes in both of the phase one budget and also, it was phase two, very little is actually due to change orders. is that correct? phase one is one our 10% change order allowance. >> okay that is impressive too. you were very lucky with the phase one timing and to move a couple items forward and phase two as you know the market is on
7:08am
fire. any other questions? this is great that you so much all in favor-aye. resolution 12 in this action, 129797 and 1298 have been approved. >> thank you. >> item 13 new business. any public comment on new business? anybody have a new business for me? yeah? no? real quickly i know it's been a long day madame chair on this cruise terminal it has already been out the operator r rfp it's out now and due early february, i think. so what happens is the port staff and maritime they interview the different operator and is then they come back here to the board with recommendation and so we will establish a selection and panel which will include some
7:09am
internal staff and a lot of sternal folks based on the score of of r f q's we will come up with a selection for oral interviews all of which is over seen by the human right commission and then formerlily to your point, we will come back to the commission with a recommendation for the highest ranked firm. >> okay what i would like if you could possibly bring back two names, i think that would be good and i would like to have them come so that the commissioners we can talk it hem and sometimes we give them one but i would like two operators that are good that we can talk too i would like to do that. okay hopefully we are going to have that many hopefully more i don't that is good i hope you have ten but when you make the recommendations i would like there to be two. >> okay i'm still holding my
7:10am
breath. will do is there any other new business ...? public comment is there any public comment? seeing none. to reconvene and close session. i move man where is many? do we need many? are you ready? yeah. move that we reconvene in open session, second all in favor? aye and move that we not disclose-second. all in favor aye and move that we adjourn in memory of francis alwrote oh, steve chew john tell at a wallet tear newman. second may they rest in pees. meeting
7:11am
adjourned at 713 prime minister. merry christmas and happy new year. i'm the president of friends of mclaren park. it is one of the oldest neighborhood community park groups in san francisco. i give a lot of tours through the park. during those tours, a lot of the folks in the group will think of the park as very scary. it has a lot of hills, there's a lot of dense groves. once you get towards the center of the park you really lose your orientation. you are very much in a remote area. there are a lot of trees that shield your view from the urban
7:12am
setting. you would simply see different groves that gives you a sense of freedom, of being outdoors, not being burdened by the worries of city life. john mclaren had said that golden gate park was too far away. he proposed that we have a park in the south end of the city. the campaign slogan was, people need this open space. one of the things that had to open is there were a lot of people who did a homestead here, about 25 different families. their property had to be bought up. so it took from 1928 to 1957 to buy up all the parcels of land that ended up in this 317 acres. the park, as a general rule, is heavily used in the mornings and the evenings. one of the favorite places is up by the upper reservoir because dogs get to go swim.
7:13am
it's extremely popular. many fights in the city, as you know, about dogs in parks. we have 317 acres and god knows there's plenty of room for both of us. man and his best friend. early in the morning people before they go to work will walk their dogs or go on a jog themselves with their dogs. joggers love the park, there's 7 miles of hiking trails and there's off trail paths that hikers can take. all the recreational areas are heavily used on weekends. we have the group picnic area which should accommodate 200 people, tennis courts are full. it also has 3 playground areas. the ampitheater was built in 1972. it was the home of the first blues festival. given the fact that jerry
7:14am
garcia used to play in this park, he was from this neighborhood, everybody knows his reputation. we thought what a great thing it would be to have an ampitheater named after jerry garcia. that is a name that has panache. it brings people from all over the bay area to the ampitheater. the calls that come in, we'd like to do a concert at the jerry garcia ampitheater and we do everything we can to accommodate them and help them because it gets people into the park. people like a lot of color and that's what they call a park. other people don't. you have to try to reconcile all those different points of view. what should a park look like and what should it have? should it be manicured, should it be nice little cobblestones around all of the paths and like that. the biggest objective of course is getting people into the park to appreciate open space. whatever that's going to take
7:15am
to make them happy, to get them there, that's the main goal. if it takes a planter with flowers and stuff like that, fine. you know, so what? people need to get away from that urban rush and noise and this is a perfect place to do it. feedback is always amazement. they don't believe that it's in san francisco. we have visitors who will say, i never knew this was here and i'm a native san franciscoan. they wonder how long it's been here. when i tell them next year we'll get to celebrate the 80th we'll get to celebrate the 80th shortly. >> the clerk: regular hearing for thursday, december 13-rbgs 2012. the commission does not tolerate outburst or disruption of any kind. if you'd like to speak on an
7:16am
agendized item please fill out a speaker form. and when speaking before the commission, please speak directly into the microphone and state your name for the record. i'd also ask that you turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. i'd like to take roll. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here.
7:17am
first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item
7:18am
18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye.
7:19am
7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar?
7:20am
seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that passes unanimously. commissioners, we are going to call items 9(a) and b out of order. at 4 i 22 vincente street. >> ask the commission to recuse myself as we prepared materials for the project sponsor. >> move to recuse commissioner sugaya. >> second.
7:21am
>> on the motion to recuse, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, commissioner wu, aye, commissioner fong, aye. so moved. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the planning commission, staff tom wang, discretionary review case. this is discretionary review involving demolition in a new building. the proposal is to demolish an existing two story vacant single family dwelling with a non-functional garage and replace it with a new single family dwelling, two story over
7:22am
garage. the report provided by the project sponsor, the department believes the -- demonstrated the existing structure is unsound. and then the project also meets the majority of the 16 criteria on the residential demolition. therefore we would recommend the approval of the -- of this demolition. for the proposed new building, this is two-story over garage, the department does have some concerns and the reason said although the -- the design of the new building meets all the applicable provisions of the planning code, however it is not fully consistent with the residential design guidelines. in the staff report, there are three areas. we would recommend to be
7:23am
modified. first, set the third story back fully 15 feet from the main front building wall in order to limit its visibility from the street. currently around the subject -- the majority -- or even the houses along the subject -- there are two story tall and the proposal is for a three-story building. therefore residential design guidelines calls for a setback of 15 feet from the main front building wall. second, reduce the width of the garage door from 12 feet to 10 feet and the reason is that -- is to prevent the replacement of dwelling to garage entrance from becoming a dominant facade feature. also, again, current houses -- surrounding houses on the subject about-face, they all have narrower garage doors such as 10 feet wide. at the last reduce the building
7:24am
mass of the third story either by setting it -- its rear wall back eight feet to be -- an advantage between the depth of the rear building walls of the two adjacent buildings, or by creating a 204 square feet notch on the third floor, measuring from the third floor northeast corner 17 feet around the north side wall and 12 feet along the east side wall. staff has a little -- to demonstrate this number three modification.
7:25am
this is what the project sponsor proposed for the third story. there's a small notch that's three feet wide and 15 feet deep and the department does not believe it's enough to address the existing -- open space, as well as the concerns raised by adjacent property owner at 414 vincente street. there are two options. option a, this -- it is in proportion to this map here, to set the rear building wall back eight feet towards front, and the -- area, that means the building mass would have been reduced. or option b, is to create a larger building notch over the
7:26am
northeast corner, and with the respective dimensions. and these three modifications, the department would recommend. however, the project sponsor declined to take any modifications based upon the department's recommendation. over all, the department would recommend approval of the demolition and the new building with modification and the over all reason the project will replace unsound family -- and no -- parking with single family dwelling containing four bedrooms and off street parking. no tenants will be displaced as a result of the project because the building -- the dwelling currently is vacant. and, next, given the scale of the project there will be no
7:27am
significant impact on the exist capacity of the street or muni services. and finally although the existing structure is more than 50 years old, a review of the historic resource evaluation resulted in determination that the existing building is not an historical resource. this would conclude our presentation and i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> thank you, mr. president, members of the commission. scott -- on behalf of the project sponsor. what the owners want to do here is take a building that has been vacant for over six years, this is a view of the building, and finally be able to replace it with a single family home that looks like this.
7:28am
it's been six years that the demolition permit and this rebuild permit have been -- the planning staff. in fact there was an earlier demolition permit eight years ago for this property. when the current owners bought the property it was marketed as a teardown. they came in and promptly tried to do just that to get a betterblbetterbuilding for theme neighborhood. since they took a do it yourself approach they weren't able to comply with the requirements quickly and because the project went through the hands of four different planners with differing requirements it took this long to get to this point. on the demolition you have a report in front of you showing no significance, you have a soundness report showing it is well above the 50% threshold for demolition. the more significant issue in front of you is the new construction. again that permit has been out there for six years.
7:29am
and i must disagree with what mr. wang told you about the owner not accepting modifications. in fact the owner has made many modifications since it first proposed this building to try to address the concerns both of the neighbors and of the staff. at the front originally this building was proposed with a ten foot setback. the staff asked that they move the front back, and they did just that, they moved it back 15 feet on one side, and 12 feet on the other side. and the staff has asked that it be moved 15 feet all the way. the reason for the set back is to make it in compliance with the residential guideline supposedly but if you look at the residential design guidelines that shows an illustration, which is almost identical to the building that is being proposed. a setback of the top floor to take it away from